Skip to main content

Security report for dehoop.net

Shipyard De Hoop · Transportation · Netherlands

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Shipyard De Hoop is a well-established shipbuilding company based in the Netherlands, with a history dating back to 1889. The company specializes in custom new builds, ship repair, maintenance, conversions, and interior design for various vessel types. The website reflects a professional business presence targeting maritime industry clients and partners. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a moderate tech stack including jQuery and SEO plugins, offering good mobile optimization and user experience. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled but lacks some advanced security headers and explicit incident response information. Privacy policies are present and GDPR compliant, though cookie consent mechanisms could be improved. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises some concerns about domain registration legitimacy, but the website content and business information appear trustworthy and consistent with a legitimate enterprise.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching dehoop.net

This scan found 26 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
57
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
68
Average
48

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The company holds a solid market position in the shipbuilding sector, offering a range of services from custom vessel construction to engineering and maintenance. The business model focuses on B2B relationships within the maritime transportation industry. The website demonstrates ongoing projects and recent deliveries, indicating active operations and growth. Partnerships with other maritime companies are implied but not explicitly detailed. Revenue streams likely derive from shipbuilding contracts, repair services, and design consulting. The company targets maritime operators, ship owners, and related businesses. The digital presence is professional but could benefit from enhanced transparency in security and compliance disclosures.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data in its HTML content. However, it lacks several recommended security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), X-Frame-Options, and HSTS. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts are published, which limits transparency and readiness perception. There is no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file found. Privacy compliance is addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are absent. Overall, the security maturity is moderate, suitable for a business website but with room for improvement to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add an explicit cookie consent banner/mechanism to improve GDPR compliance and user transparency.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to build trust and readiness.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Improve accessibility features to broaden user inclusivity and meet best practices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Shipyard De Hoop
Description
Shipbuilding Since 1889
Key services
Custom New Builds, Design & Engineering Services, Shiprepair, Maintenance & Conversions, Designing & Building Interiors
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Yoast SEO, WordPress, Featured Video Plus plugin, Better Analytics plugin, Font Awesome, SlickNav, FlexSlider
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-conscious plugins (e.g., Better Analytics)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Jetpack Stats
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Jetpack Stats
Marketing tools
Better Analytics, Yoast SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  3. Uses WordPress CMS with common plugins
  4. No direct company emails or phone numbers found in HTML
  5. Contact available via contact page form
  6. Privacy and cookie policies present but no explicit consent banner
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure
  8. No explicit security policy or incident response info
  9. WHOIS data missing, which is a concern for domain legitimacy
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a combination of plugins such as Yoast SEO, Featured Video Plus, and Better Analytics. It uses jQuery and other JavaScript libraries for UI components like sliders and menus. The site loads external resources from trusted CDNs and analytics providers. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. Mobile responsiveness is good, but accessibility features are basic. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph, and structured data in JSON-LD format. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional business website but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with dehoop.net. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review dehoop.net.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.